Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score -1, Flamebait) 164

Seriously, the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda as a threat to America, you're welcome for 9/11.

So let's see ... as everyone has had to do through all of history, we worked with regional interests to help push back against the greater bad guy (the Soviets, continuing to try to expand their territory). The regional guys turn out to have their own post-Soviet-fight agenda. You, however, as typical nonsensical racist, think that people from that region aren't able to make their own decisions or set out to fulfill their own wishes. No, to you those Foreign Brown People are like zombies that would sit and do nothing without the controlling wizardry of Teh Eeevil Amerikkka blah blah blah.

the drone killing campaign which spawns ten terrorists for every one it kills

I see. So you're a bigger fan of going in on the ground with huge column of armor and troops and the supporting logistics so that we can, instead of using deliberate air strikes, get into a non-stop series of random street fights while trying to kill the same terrorists, but instead rack up huge collateral damage while also telegraphing every move on the ground and chasing the targets out of range for months on end. That is an EXCELLENT alternative. And of course that strategy wouldn't do anything to inspire new jihaddi recruits, no not at all.

stupid illegal invasion of Iraq

Oh, here we go. I didn't realize you were just trolling. Sorry. Since you're revising history and just making stuff up, I guess we'll call it a day.

Comment Re:anti-business liberal scoring points (Score 0) 314

My answer to this is very simple actually, if there is no business case to go to Mars I don't want any government stealing money from people to go to Mars because at that point it is all it is: theft.

Eventually a business case for Mars may become real and then businesses will find a way to get there. Today it is likely not the case at all that there is any sort of ROI on going to Mars except for raising spirits of those, who want to see it happen.

Well, if the people who WANT to see it happen actually PAY for it by BUYING bonds that would pay for it, then a private business can do it without government! That's because a private business can print bonds that can be sold (tentatively) to people and if enough money is raised then actually collect the money and start building.

To do it otherwise is to steal, but that's nothing new, that's what all governments always do.

Comment Re: Torrent (Score 1) 311

Well, yes, it is primarily shooters to blame. I'm not afraid to admit that sometimes gun owners can be our own worst enemy, and this is one of those instances.

Oddly, some of the worst behavior I've seen was from stupid/bored/drunk/high townies that live nearby, and basically call these areas their back yard. After all, they don't have to drive an hour to get there, and don't consider shooting opportunities as a scarce resource. A fair share is also due to campers (more like squatters sometimes), and no doubt hikers as well, as even that demographic has two divisions: people who basically leave no trace, and pigs like everyone else.

As a hiker, I'm always picking up hiker related rubbish on the trail (energy bar wrappers being the most common), but there is a practical limit to how much damage one hiker can do, namely the weight they can carry on their back. As a shooter, I always bring along a rake and shovel and at least a couple huge industrial grade trash bags for cleanup after I'm done. I often fill at least one bag and bring it back to the city for disposal.

Submission + - Will you be able to run a modern desktop environment in 2016 without systemd?

yeupou writes: Early this year, David Edmundson from KDE, concluded that "In many cases [systemd] allows us to throw away large amounts of code whilst at the same time providing a better user experience. Adding it [systemd] as an optional extra defeats the main benefit". A perfectly sensible explanation. But, then, one might wonder to which point KDE would remain usable without systemd?

Recently, on one Devuan box, I noticed that KDE power management (Powerdevil) no longer supported suspend and hibernate. Since pm-utils was still there, for a while, I resorted to call pm-suspend directly, hoping it would get fixed at some point. But it did not. So I wrote a report myself. I was not expecting much. But neither was I expecting it to be immediately marked as RESOLVED and DOWNSTREAM, with a comment accusing the "Debian fork" I'm using to "ripe out" systemd without "coming with any of the supported solutions Plasma provides". I searched beforehand about the issue so I knew that the problem also occurred on some other Debian-based systems and that the bug seemed entirely tied to upower, an upstream software used by Powerdevil. So if anything, at least this bug should have been marked as UPSTREAM.

While no one dares (yet) to claim to write software only for systemd based operating system, it is obvious that it is now getting quite hard to get support otherwise. At the same time, bricks that worked for years without now just get ruined, since, as pointed out by Edmunson, adding systemd as "optional extra defeats its main benefit". So, is it likely that we'll still have in 2016 a modern desktop environment, without recent regressions, running without systemd?

Comment Re:Don't evolve your business model (Score 1) 214

I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it ...

I don't see this as a property-rights issue. You're sending them a message with a request for one or more URLs; they're sending messages back with the content. At no point do you have possession of or control over any of their property. Their property is doing exactly what they deliberately programmed it to do: send their content to any arbitrary unauthenticated user on the Internet who requests it. If they did require authentication and you claimed to be someone else in order to gain access then a case could be made for fraud. However, so long as they send out the content to anyone who asks for it, I don't see any problem with making the request.

Comment Re:Target audience (Score 1) 214

The comment was addressed not to Axel Springer, but to the advertisers, who now have more ad "impressions", but probably no more sales than before. They're advertising to people who were willing to pay money to avoid seeing their ads. Those users were doing the advertisers a favor by removing themselves from the viewer pool. Rather than simply not being seen, those ad impressions will now create negative associations for their brands.

Unfortunately there's a delay in the feedback, allowing sites to profit from this for a while at the advertisers' expense. Eventually, though, this effect will cause the payment per ad impression to drop, leading sites to show even more ads to compensate, which in turn drives the price per ad down even further while simultaneously alienating what users they had left.

Comment Re:Don't evolve your business model (Score 1) 214

I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.

That is, of course, one option. However, I'm of the mind that by setting up a server on the public Internet which responds to arbitrary unauthenticated HTTP requests, they've effectively given permission to access their site to everyone on the Internet, regardless of any claims to the contrary in their terms of service.

If they want to enforce terms and conditions, they are welcome to require users to register and log in before presenting any content.

Comment linux based POS (Score 0) 91

One of the benefits and reasons why we build Linux based systems for retail chain management, store management, supply chain management, e-commerce and such is ability to secure against these types of attacks better. Beyond that we came up with a new way of protecting credit card information by tying it to the location of the user's phone, but we are not a nominal 'fintech' and those guys are too hard to approach (for now at least).

Comment Re:Nothing to hide (Score 1) 75

I would have found out about it when the collection agencies banged on my door for payment and they wouldn't be likely to take "But I didn't open that account or spend that money" as an excuse for not paying "my" debts.

But they really should.

The creditors are responsible for this situation through their lax authentication measures, even more so than the ones directly committing the fraud. The single most effective thing that could be done to prevent this type of identity fraud would be to void any attempt to collect on a debt (and consider it libel to include the debt in your credit history) unless the creditor can show that the target of the collection was the one that took out the loan—and obviously knowledge of public information like SSN, date of birth, etc. is not sufficient to prove that it was actually you.

Comment Re:Reinvestment ? (Score 1) 361

I'm all for a reasonable tax on corporations, but not by offloading their tax burden onto the rest of us.

You're already paying that tax burden, plus the extra burden of the departments full of accountants needed to keep track of it all. Businesses operate at a relatively fixed level of economic profit. Below that point they go out of business; above that point competition increases and profit margins shrink. To a business, taxes are just another cost, and one way or another that cost gets passed on to you, the customer, either in the form of increased prices (due to decreased supply) or goods and services which are simply unavailable because the taxes would make them uneconomical.

Perhaps as an incentive, allow business to claim a tax deduction for money they put back into the business ?

That's how it already works. Corporate taxes only apply to the profits, after expenses. Money which is reinvested into the business is not taxed. Unfortunately, the resources which you must spend to earn your paycheck are not treated the same way; a fair accounting would let you deduct essential personal expenses such as food, clothing, shelter, travel, and education, without which you would be unable to perform your job.

"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?" - Post Brothers comics